Non-Fourier based thermal-mechanical tissue damage prediction for thermal ablation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Cubic tissue model with a needle inserted inside.

Table 1. Tissue parameters and constants.

Parameters	Value
Density $\rho$; $kg/m^3$	1060
Specific heat$C$; $J/kgK$	4192
Thermal conductivity $\text{ k}$; $\text{W}/\text{mK}$	0.613
Thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha$; $1/\text{°C}$	$1\times {10}^{-4}$
Young's modulus $E$; $Pa$	$1.1\times {10}^6$
Poisson's ratio $\nu$;	0.48
Blood perfusion rate ${\omega }_b$; $kg/\left(m^{3}s\right)$	0.5
Arterial temperature $T_b$; K	310
Metabolic heat generation rate $Q_m$; $W/m^3$	33800
Blood specific heat $C_b$; $J/kgK$	3600
Characteristic Time ${\tau }_q$; s	16
Activation energy $\Delta E$; $J/mol$	667000
Frequency factor $\varsigma$; $1/s$	$1.98\times {10}^{106}$
Gas constant $R$; $J/\left(molK\right)$	8.314

Figure 2. Temperature distributions at certain points for both Fourier and non-Fourier models.

Figure 3. Comparison of temperature distributions between the Fourier (left) and non-Fourier (right) based methods.

Figure 4. Comparison of strain distributions between the Fourier (top) and non-Fourier (bottom) based methods.

Figure 5. Comparison of stress distributions between the Fourier (top) and non-Fourier (bottom) based methods.

Figure 6. Comparison of strain energy distribution between the Fourier (left) and non-Fourier (right) based methods.

Figure 7. Damage vs. time comparison.

Figure 8. Comparison of tissue damage.